INEC Appeals Judgement Against Election Timetable
The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has rejected the judgement of the Federal High Court which nullified revised timetable for the 2927 general elections, and proceeded on appeal. The Commission is asking the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which nullified part of the election guideline put in place by the commission for the conduct of the 2027 general elections.
INEC, in a motion on notice attached to the appeal, prayed the court for an order staying the execution and/or further execution of the Judgment of the high court, delivered on the 20th day of May, 2026, pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal it filed against the Judgment at the Court of Appeal.
Last week, Justice Muhammed Umar of the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, nullified guidelines issued by the INEC, directing political parties to submit their membership registers and databases by May 10 as a condition for participation in the 2027 general elections.
A political party, the Youth Party, had filed a suit challenging the legality of the electoral body’s directive.
The court said, in its judgement, that INEC could not lawfully shorten the timeline already provided under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act 2026 for the submission of party membership records and candidates’ particulars.
In the appeal dated May 25, 2026, filed by INEC, through its Counsel, Alex Izinyon, SAN, the electoral umpire prayed the court to set aside the judgement.
Apart from praying the court to set aside the judgement, the Senior Advocate, in the appeal asked the court to stay the execution of the judgement.
In the appeal, the electoral umpire raised nine grounds of appeal.
INEC argued that the high court erred in law when he failed to pronounce on the jurisdictional issue of the suit being hypothetic and academic which failure occasioned denial of fair hearing to the Appellant.
He also prayed for an order of the court, striking out the suit as the Respondent lacks the locus standi to institute and maintain same describing the suit as being academic.